SOERTSZ AJ.—de Silva v. Jacob.
1935Present: Soertsz A.J.
DE SILVA v. JACOB.
15—C. R. Trincomalee, 3,612.
Public Officer—Seizure of salary—Constable employed in Naval Yard—CivilProcedure Code, s. 218 lh).
The salary of a constable employed in the Naval Yard under theImperial Government is exempt from seizure under section 218 (h) of theCivil Procedure Code.
PPEAL from a judgment of the Commissioner of Requests,Trincomalee.
N.E. Weerasooria (with him G. Wickramanayake), for plaintiff,appellant.
June 24, 1935. Soertsz A.J.—
This appeal arises as the result of the seizure under section 232 of theCivil Procedure Code at the instance of the plaintiff-appellant of a sum ofRs. 34.47 in the hands of the Superintendent, Naval Yard, Trincomalee.This amount was the salary payable to the defendant judgment-debtor forthe month of October, 1934. On November 1, 1934, Inspector Doole waspresent on behalf of the Superintendent of the Naval Yard and claimedthat the defendant was a Police Constable employed in the Royal NavalYard under the Imperial Government and that, therefore, his salary wasnot liable to be seized. Subject to that he deposited Rs. 24.19 to thecredit of the case. The matter came up for consideration on December17, 1934.
The learned Commissioner held that the seizure was bad in view ofsection 218 (h) of the Civil Procedure Code and released it with costs.The appeal is from that order. In my opinion the order is right. Section218 (h) protects the salary of “ a public officer or servant Section 5 of
i 16 N. L. R. 26.
SOERTSZ A.J.—Toussaint v. Cecilia.
the Civil Procedure Code defines a “ Public Officer ” as including “ allofficers or servants employed in this colony by or under the ImperialGovernment or the Government of Ceylon ”-^a very comprehensivedefinition—which, in my opinion, clearly takes in a Police Constable suchas the defendant who had retired from the Ordinary Police Force, andwas, at the time his salary was seized, employed as a Police Constable inthe Naval Yard under the Imperial Government.
I do not see any force in the contention put forward in paragraph 4 ofthe petition of appeal. However often the amount was seized, it wasstill the same thing—the defendant’s salary for October, 1934.
I dismiss the appeal.
DE SILVA v. JACOB